Environment Sustainability Focus Group February 5, 2013 1 ...i11study.com/...02-05-I...Focus-Group-Report-FINAL.pdf · received relative to environment and sustainability issues and

Environment & Sustainability Focus Group

February 5, 2013 1:30 – 3:30 p.m. PST, 2:30 – 4:30 p.m. MST

The Arizona and Nevada departments of transportation are working together on the two‐year Interstate 11 (I‐11) and Intermountain West Corridor Study (Corridor) that includes detailed corridor planning of a possible high priority Interstate link between Phoenix and Las Vegas (the I‐11 portion), and high‐level visioning for potentially extending the Corridor north to Canada and south to Mexico. Congress recognized the importance of the portion of the Corridor between Phoenix and Las Vegas and designated it as future I‐11 in the recent transportation authorization bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP‐21). As part of the study, interested public agencies, non‐profit organizations and private interests groups are invited to participate in a Stakeholder Partners group that will be asked to provide data and other input, and to share their opinions and ideas on decision points throughout the process. As part of this effort, Stakeholder Partners could participate in a series of topical focus groups. On February 5, 2013, the Environment and Sustainability Focus Group was held. Meetings were conducted simultaneously in three locations: Carson City, Nevada; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Surprise, Arizona. Additionally, individuals could call‐in and log‐on to participate in a live webinar. A total of 50 participants signed in. The following report summarizes the results of this focus group. The comments presented in this report represent input from Stakeholder Partners that participated and will be reviewed and considered by the study team.

The purpose of these focus groups was to provide an opportunity to validate and add to the information that has already been gathered by the study team in order to complete the first half of the study and development of the Corridor Justification Report. Participants were provided access to the PowerPoint presentation prior to the focus group meeting.

February 5, 2013 Environment and Sustainability Focus Group Summary

Interstate 11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study Page 2

The meeting was initiated by a detailed PowerPoint presentation viewed at all locations and online. Project Michael Kies from the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) provided a brief review of the project, vision concepts and work plan and schedule. Project co‐manager Sondra Rosenberg from the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) provided a review of sustainability and context sensitive solutions relative to the proposed Corridor. Jaclyn Pfeiffer introduced the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process and provided highlights from initial environmental scanning efforts. Audra Koester Thomas, project team member, highlighted some of the feedback already received relative to environment and sustainability issues and introduced the focus group discussion questions. At the completion of the PowerPoint presentation, breakout session discussions were facilitated. Facilitators asked participants at each location to provide feedback on the following:

• How can we develop a sustainable corridor that meets the aspirations of the triple bottom line? o Environment:

What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g., wildlife crossings)?

What creative techniques can we use in corridor development to enhance the surrounding environment (e.g., wetland banking)?

o Social & Economic: What approaches should we take to balance regional mobility needs and economic opportunities without creating urban sprawl?

• Is there anything else that we should consider in this corridor planning effort, and are there key groups/individuals missing from this dialogue?

The following identifies some of key points derived from the focus group discussion; full reports summarizing the discussion in each location are included in this report.

• Thoroughly consider the opportunities of this Corridor being multimodal, with consolidated rights of way. Its footprint should be as narrow as possible.

• Be sure to consider the no build alternative as well as the use of existing corridors. • Consider tactics to promote the triple bottom line, including use of tolls, minimizing the number

of traffic interchanges and use of land development conservation set‐asides. • Reduce impacts to the environment and mitigate any realized impacts. For example,

understanding wildlife movement is very important and habitat blocks and connectivity is important for economic success, however wildlife crossings as a mitigation measure are not always the preferred action. Place the corridor in the correct location first to avoid having to construct wildlife crossings that are more elaborate than culvert crossings. Wildlife connectivity across infrastructure is really an aspect of the design process (e.g., culvert sizing and placement, right‐of‐way fencing, etc.).

• Coordinate with partners. BLM can provide feedback related to its Rapid Ecoregional Assessments and Travel Management Plans. Recreation on public lands is a popular activity/tourist attraction (OHVs, hunting, fishing, etc.) and should be considered in Corridor design. Prohibiting access or hindering such activities can have a negative impact on a state’s economy.

• Assign different character areas to different segments of the Corridor – leave some segments as “scenic” and plan for lighter uses, allow access to public lands, etc., while purposely place higher intensity uses (e.g., truck stops) in more urbanized areas.

• Take advantage of the solar potential of Arizona and Nevada to utilize alternative energy to power Corridor‐related infrastructure (e.g., lighting).



• Recognize that it may not be possible for a roadway to “enhance” the surrounding environment; however, it may be possible for us to set a new dynamic in transportation development so that all needs are met. The goal should be to eliminate as many negative impacts as possible across the gamut (environmental, cultural, historical, social, etc.) then to repair any damage done during construction or due to use of the Corridor.

• Make this a true multiuse corridor to maximize efficiency, promote more energy‐efficient transportation and freight movement, and minimize disturbance to the environment; incorporate utility right of way, passenger and freight rail, and multiuse trails in urban or suburban areas. If any franchises are given to services (e.g., service stations, markets) along the route, ensure that these companies (large or small) have a commitment to the triple bottom line and the smallest environmental footprint possible (and are monitored for that).



Carson City, Nevada Meeting Summary Report NDOT 3rd Floor Conference Room, Large Side 1263 S. Stewart St. Carson City, NV

Meeting Feedback Following a brief PowerPoint presentation, Sondra Rosenberg facilitated participants in a dialogue regarding freight opportunities related to the I‐11 Corridor. The following feedback was provided by participants as part of that discussion.

What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g. wildlife crossings)?

• Provide recreational opportunities (and access to opportunities) along the Corridor. • Provide expeditious travel to recreational areas; make movement to recreational opportunities

easier. • Identify BMPs for local concerns at particular corridors/wildlife migration patterns. • Provide desert tortoise protection. • Consider use of edible plants as landscape. • Use LAMP (www.ndothighways.org). • Salvage and reuse native vegetation along with fencing or other work being done. Using existing

natural infrastructure will mean there’s no need for permanent irrigation. • Use of fire resistant plants. • Provide signage for gas, charging, etc. (i.e. “Next services XXX miles” or “No more charging

stations for xxx miles”). • Preserve unique features.


• Techniques will likely be site specific. • Look at existing corridors as a priority before creating new corridors. • Provide connectivity on the western part of the Nevada. • Consideration of cost of right of way. • Work with BLM on preservation of right of way. • Design the Corridor to bypass communities but provide interchange to access communities; this

could open up existing communities to new users, such as bicycling. • Consider safety; having different kinds of vehicles (freight, passenger cars) on the same two‐lane

road is a concern (i.e. passing, etc.). • Consider partnerships with eco‐tourism activities. • Use conservation easement (i.e. wetlands, recreation, protection of endangered species, offsite

mitigation) and conservation management areas. • Work with BLM to set aside areas from development to protect important view sheds.



• Prepare and adapt for climate change; consider vegetation, water availability, wildlife, and storm events.

• Preserve small towns along the Corridor; include local entities in this discussion.

What approaches should we take to balance regional mobility needs and economic opportunities without creating urban sprawl?

• Some communities might value “sprawl”; avoiding it may not be the answer everywhere. Reword question to “...without creating an undesirable land use pattern.” Each community might have a different value for land use development.

• Limit this Corridor to existing corridors rather than the potential to create a new corridor, potentially causing additional adverse impacts.

• Consider all modes, particularly rail/inland ports. • Consider the most efficient movement of goods and people. • Consider cycling; removal of freight from some corridors might encourage more cycling. • How do we preserve communities while enhancing transportation efficiency? • Consider cycling connectivity; it’s a form of transportation in addition to recreation. • Keep in mind what types of facilitates encourage what types of development and plan ahead

based on local values. • Encourage lots of involvement of local government, re: growth controls, etc. • Separate freight traffic from central cities. • Consider location of truck stops along corridor and within/near cities. • Consider coordination with energy corridors. • Nevada is unique; there are often hundreds of miles between developments. • Re‐purpose roads for recreational opportunities. • Consider safety improvements; there currently are insufficient rest areas. • Identify truck routes and provide sufficient facilities for check areas, rest, waste dumping, etc. • Understand the effect of increased use on existing roads. • Consider that an increase in access creates increased demand.

Is there anything else that we should consider in this corridor planning effort, and are there key groups/individuals missing from this dialogue?

• Consider creating a definition of sustainability; one example: development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

• Consider the human environment; inventory environmental justice groups/populations, coordinate with RTC, cities, etc.

• Coordination with: o Tribes o Department of Economic Development o Universities o Forest Service o COE o COR o FWS o BIA o DOD o Department of Business & Industry o BOR/FWS – Multispecies Habitat Conservation (Lower Colorado)



• Make use of existing inventory of resources (plants, animals, historic resources). • Consider the maintainability of facilities. • Consider aesthetics needs. • Consider timing; BLM RMP updates and corridor plans in relation to designation of right of way. • Consider West Wide Energy Corridor Study. • Consider Sage Grouse; BLM is reviewing “corridors” with Sage Grouse habitat (thus, corridor

status may change). • Consider a joint NDOT/FHWA/BLM memorandum of understanding regarding right of way; this

sort of tool may be useful here. • Where will the Corridor go within the Las Vegas metro area? • For areas north of Las Vegas, environmental constraints will make this corridor difficult (see:

ACEC, DOE, wildlife refuge, etc.). • Consider electric vehicles and charging stations (see: NEVA and southern Nevada fleet

association and Clean Cities Coalition). • Look at best practices in other states related to newest technologies (i.e. solar to heat roadways

to remove ice and snow in Michigan).



Las Vegas, Nevada Meeting Summary Report RTC Southern Nevada Room 108 600 S. Grand Central Pkwy. Las Vegas, NV

Meeting Feedback Following a brief PowerPoint presentation, Dan Andersen facilitated participants in a dialogue regarding freight opportunities related to the I‐11 Corridor. The following feedback was provided by participants as part of that discussion.

What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g. wildlife crossings)?

• We need to look for opportunities to narrow the footprint of the Corridor wherever possible. • Design exceptions can be given to tighten turning radii or for other standards, however they

need to be justified. • The improvements to US 93 between I‐40 and Wikiup impacted a lot of land with the wide

center medium and slope/erosion control measures. Was that really necessary? Could the footprint have been reduced?

• What is the minimum right of way width needed? That will be determined as part of this study. • Alternative fuel stations should be included.


• It is probably not possible for a roadway to “enhance” the surrounding environment. However, it may be possible for us to set a new dynamic in transportation development so that all needs are met.

• The Western Governors Association is working together to map wildlife habitat areas. Arizona Game and Fish is doing a good job of creating wildlife habitat linkages. The GIS lead from Nevada is Chet VanDellen.

• Environmental impact studies in the area will provide useful information on environmental needs and concerns.

• The trash scattered along highways attracts coyotes and ravens, that then prey on other animals and tip the ecological balance around the highway.

• The BLM is conducting Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) to improve the understanding of the existing condition of large landscapes, and how conditions may be altered by ongoing environmental changes and land use demands. Ecoregions span administrative boundaries and typically encompass areas much larger than those managed by individual BLM field offices. Three REAs encompass most of the corridor within Arizona and Nevada: Sonoran Desert, Mojave Basin & Range, and Central Basin & Range. See: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach/reas.html



• The Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) Solar Regional Mitigation Planning Project at I‐15 and US 93 north of Las Vegas is a great example of balancing needs. It also should be considered in the next phase as alignments are developed. Mike Dwyer is the PM. See: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/fo/lvfo/blm_programs/energy/dry_lake_solar_energy.html

• Off‐sets are a big help, and an effective way to mitigate for adverse impacts.


• I‐11 should connect to major activity centers, such as the proposed Ivanpah Airport. • Jurisdictions have the ultimate say over where development occurs, and can control it or

contain it within nodes, with effective land use planning. • Towns that are bypassed could be harmed. • Land development conservation acts in Clark, White Pines and Lincoln counties set aside

conservation areas and turned over BLM land in exchange—those communities that received lands are looking to grow in the future.


• The National Park Service needs to be involved early in this process. They have strict air quality standards for the Grand Canyon area that could be impacted by ozone transfer from an expanded I‐11 corridor. It is foreseeable that Mexican trucks could use different fuels with lower standards and greater emissions.

• The Nature Conservancy is a good resource for information. • The Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan is a good resource in Southern Nevada. • The Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition (SNRPC) should be involved. Consider making

a presentation to them. • Others that should be involved:

o EPA o Colorado River Commission o Central Arizona Project

• Commodity flow studies are needed. [Phil Klevorick will provide a copy of a study Clark County conducted]



Surprise, Arizona Meeting Summary Report Communiversity Room 1004 15950 N. Civic Center Plaza Surprise, AZ

Meeting Feedback Following a brief PowerPoint presentation, Jackie Pfeiffer facilitated participants in a dialogue regarding environment and sustainability opportunities related to the I‐11 Corridor. The following feedback was provided by participants as part of that discussion.

What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g., wildlife crossings)?

• Before considering corridor design, it is really important to get the alignment in the right location. There are a lot of environmental constraints along the US 93 corridor and not all the right players are in the room to answer these questions. [Arizona Wilderness Coalition representative will provide a list of other stakeholders to be included in project communications]

• Combine as many linear infrastructure elements as possible into one corridor. Transportation facilities can drive growth and create a need for additional infrastructure facilities and corridors (e.g., power transmission lines).

o Larger footprint may seem to come at a cost to the surrounding environment; however, it could have a greater benefit to the area if designed in a context sensitive manner.

o Arizona Game and Fish Department supports concentrated infrastructure corridors, but they can also pose a design issue later to accommodate wildlife movement; maintain coordination with Arizona Game and Fish Department to develop solutions.

• Utilize the solar potential of the area: o Plug‐in stations for electric cars o Truck stop electrification o Solar lighting (protect dark skies)

• Use native plants in landscaping. • In certain segments of the Corridor, consider provision of:

o HOV lanes o Parallel bicycle facilities (e.g., provide access to regional parks) o Off highway vehicle (OHV) access to public recreational lands o Transit transfer stations o Traffic incident pull off lanes (avoid idling and shutting down lanes for hours,

contributing to air quality issues) • Transportation facilities drive growth; concentrate development in appropriate locations along

the Corridor. The strategic use of access control along the corridor can provide areas for urban development, while leaving other parts of the corridor as access to public lands for less intense use. Designating certain sections of the corridor as a Scenic Corridor can preserve open spaces along the corridor for future generations.



• Develop safe crossings for OHVs (they are popular in the Wickenburg area, and likely in many other Corridor segments)

o The BLM is completing a Travel Management Plan which determines appropriate travel locations for OHVs. This recreational activity is very popular in the Southwest and the BLM specifically designates OHV recreational areas. We should understand where these areas have been designated and plan for them accordingly (they will be utilizing the Corridor).

o OHVs often use culverts for highway crossing, however that action makes these less attractive for wildlife use.

o Balance OHV and wildlife travelways. o The Lake Havasu BLM division and ADOT are working closely to create safe “jumping off

points” for OHVs along US 95 to serve nearby public lands. • Access to the Corridor can be planned based on:

o Proximity to other roadways o Parks/recreational opportunities o Adjacent development

• Utilize the latest and greatest wildlife crossing facilities; however plan the Corridor so the least number of wildlife crossings are needed

o Wildlife movement can generally be accommodated into facility design (e.g., fencing, culverts, etc.); coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department on Corridor design. Common design mistakes are a huge issue and often prohibit wildlife movement.

• Wildlife linkage planning o Big game movement can cause safety concerns. o Plan in context of Arizona Game and Fish Department priorities. o Tweak Corridor design (physical design of roadway) in the context of certain threatened

and endangered species (e.g., culvert design – it needs to be done anyway and provides huge wildlife benefits).

o Right of way fencing is important, but needs to be done right. • Many recreational uses and tourism along the Corridor is based on the natural environment and

the wildlife presence; must maintain biological diversity for economic success. • Do not apply a “scenic” designation to the whole Corridor; do not want to inhibit other

beneficial pairing of uses later (e.g., parallel transmission corridors to serve energy needs in California).

o Could apply “scenic” sections where there are more light uses along the Corridor—wildlife crossings, access to parks, etc.

• Enhancing scenic corridors with vegetation in the median can actually increase wildlife mortality and encourage the spread of wildfires; medians are good, but not too wide as to provide a habitat area.

• Many invasive flora species are spreading and expanding because of roadway vegetation lack of maintenance.

o Plant correct vegetation o Routine landscape maintenance required

• During construction, consider where you will derive water from; drawing water from local sources could have an adverse effect to the surrounding environment beyond the Corridor.




• Permeable/porous pavements. • Bioswales to direct drainage in certain areas and/or redirect to washes. • Wildlife corridors over the Corridor (actually preferable, but adds cost; culverts often work just

fine). • Education centers/scenic pullouts; augment Corridor with educational resources. • Coordinate with the BLM to identify locations that are served by single water sources; might

require creative design techniques not to truncate service areas. • Maintain access to public lands; traffic interchanges should be aligned with major recreational

points. • If material pits are created for construction, the potential exists to reuse these later by

converting to wetland areas. • Determine where to derive water for rest stops – identify water sources that won’t impact

surface water sources.


• Focus growth in smart development patterns; coordinate with local jurisdictions and document the expectation for uses along the corridor to preserve the context for future generations.

• Minimize added infrastructure in areas of public lands (e.g., don’t build a major truck stop next to a park area).

• Can/should this Corridor become a tourist attraction itself? o Coordinate with local chambers of commerce o Understand local business needs/wants

• Arizona derives a lot of economic benefit from its recreational uses (e.g., fishing, hunting, etc.). This Corridor will go through a major hunting area. The Vulture Mountain area brings in the highest number of mule deer tags each year. By fragmenting this area or reducing the amount of wildlife here, the state will see a major economic impact (less income).

o See “species and economic importance” layer on Arizona Game and Fish Department’s HabiMap for more information to understand the economic importance of hunting, fishing, and wildlife recreation.

• Arizona Game and Fish Department beginning to see statewide habitat impacts because of development; prefer reuse of existing infrastructure.



Webinar Meeting Summary Report Meeting conducted via Live Meeting and teleconference

Meeting Feedback Following a brief PowerPoint presentation, Jennifer Roberts and Audra Koester Thomas solicited feedback online and via teleconference regarding opportunities related to the I‐11 Corridor. The following feedback was provided by participants as part of that discussion.

What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design?

• Investigate the impact of combining infrastructure rights of way. • Provide wildlife crossings and associated infrastructure to funnel wildlife into crossings.

Crossings should be for species of all sizes, not just large mammals. Avoid waterways, including desert washes. Reduce number of cars on road (i.e. public transit). Limit public access to sensitive areas surrounding Corridor.

• Emphasize rail transit over trucks. Two concerns: greenhouse gas emissions and resource depletion of fossil fuels.

• If you must build more highways, use permeable surfaces. You seem to have wildlife and other environmental issues under study and planning.

• Integrate green infrastructure approaches into the project such as constructed wetlands, vegetated swales, or filter strips to counteract the potential increase in runoff from use of impervious surface.

• Wildlife crossing are most important. • Wetlands are critical in the desert and disturbance of them should be minimized. No

disturbance is better than attempted mitigation, especially in desert environments. • Consider use of underpasses, avoidance of important habitats (site selection), overpasses,

exclusion‐funnel fencing (for species such as deer, tortoise, sheep, etc.), making hydraulic features wildlife friendly (culverts w/ natural substrates), bat‐friendly structures, and research of movement data for various species (pre and post).

• First, avoid crossing corridors as much as possible. If necessary, cross at least impact points. Provide appropriate crossings for specific species; may need multiple types and locations for wildlife corridors. Prepare mitigation plans for disturbed trees and other plants (ADOT doesn't usually replant trees); need this for air quality too.

• Multiuse trails in urban areas as alternative access corridors. • On the Nevada side, ensure coordination with the needs and concerns of the Boulder City

Conservation Easement. • Coordinate with the renewable energy projects and transmission line projects in Southern

Nevada.

What creative techniques can we use in corridor development to enhance the surrounding environment?

• Acquire key land parcels for large scale wildlife connectivity and habitat restoration.



• Plan multiuse corridors with road, rail, and utilities to eliminate need for other new corridors. • Utilize water harvesting for vegetation near and in the Corridor. • Add scenic points. • I have some concern about the term “enhance”. The goal should be to eliminate as many

negative impacts as possible across the gamut (environmental, cultural, historical, social, etc.) then to repair as completely as possible any damage done during construction and use of the Corridor. How will you offset any added pollution?

• How can manmade structures, such as a highway, enhance the natural environment? Wetland banking is not an enhancement but is merely a mitigation tool. The agencies need to work to avoid or minimize impacts to the environment rather than seeking to “enhance” it.

• Minimal transportation interchanges; minimize footprint of the road; minimize noise, light, and other pollution; evaluate the pros and cons of bundling right of ways; retrofit existing structures; prevent invasive species and provide ongoing monitoring.

• Make this a true multiuse corridor to maximize efficiency, promote more energy‐efficient transportation and freight movement, and minimize disturbance to the environment; incorporate utility right of way, passenger and freight rail, and multiuse trails in urban or suburban areas.

• If “new” wetlands are created, how will these be classified as such and subsequently monitored and managed? Conversely, will these “new” wetlands limit economic development adjacent to them?

• Develop wildlife viewing areas/scenic vistas and hiking/biking/equestrian trails, where practicable.


• You'll need to turn the Corridor into a National Park. • Consider a toll road with monies to go toward conservation efforts. • Put no‐access easements along the Corridor in environmentally sensitive areas. Work with

appropriate local jurisdictions to plan for (zone) increased density/intensity in urban areas along the Corridor. Link to transit in the region.

• Stick with existing infrastructure (i.e US 93) to promote the development of existing communities and prevent additional sprawl.

• In areas with land use plans, work with jurisdictions on their land use planning. • Limit interchanges and overall access to the Corridor to a few key locations. Purchase land and

create natural buffer zones along the Corridor to discourage development except in those key locations.

• Utilize public transportation only, such as high‐speed rail. Only provide stops at existing communities. Do not build new or enhance existing highways.

• That's going to be difficult. If you build it, they will come. I know from our economic development work along other existing corridors that the existence of the corridor lead to business development, which leads to jobs, which leads to housing, which leads to shopping malls; just look at the USA. Find us a corridor that did not result in sprawl.

• Make the Corridor a toll road with limited access. This Corridor – if needed – should serve long distance travel and freight transport and should not be used as a local road providing access to or enabling sprawling residential development.

• If any franchises are given to services (e.g., service stations, markets) along the route, ensure that these companies (large or small) have a commitment to the triple bottom line and the smallest environmental footprint possible (and are monitored for that).



Is there anything else that we should consider in this Corridor planning effort, and are there key groups/individuals missing from this dialogue?

• Primarily, I'd like to see the contributions of small business owners and those actively engaged in local economies. We're working on import substitutions and the transition away from fossil fuel‐based economies. This Corridor seems to be a throwback to the old, NAFTA model and may conflict with strengthening local economies.

• Please consider not establishing the Corridor, especially for a highway. If this transportation corridor is deemed necessary, consider only using public transit rather than building new roads or widening existing ones.

• I would like to see an analysis of the impact of this proposal on climate change, e.g. greenhouse gases. In comparing alternative routes, there should be a meaningful analysis of GHGs associated with the various alternatives including the "do nothing" option.

• Arizona Game and Fish Department would like to work more closely with the group to discuss and share available data, particularly informing the site selection phase and the collection of additional data for the project.

• Evaluate the potential costs/benefits of the environmental and economic aspects of the current Phoenix to Las Vegas route(s) to what a limited access route would provide.



Post-Meeting Feedback Feedback provided after the meeting via the follow‐up questionnaire to Stakeholder Partners or by other means. Feedback is provided as it was submitted and neither edited nor grammatically corrected.

How can we develop a sustainable corridor that meets the aspirations of the triple bottom line? Environment: What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g. wildlife crossings)?

• 1. Wildlife crossings 2. Access to public land from highway • ‐ gene flow corridors for climate change adaptation

‐ wildlife crossings ‐ avoidance of critical locations ‐ most likely plant occurrences ‐ ample survey work to identify sensitive species presence and locations"

• Need specifics for wildlife crossings. Overpasses for bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope. Bridge spans across major drainages. No loss of riparian and wetlands.

• wildlife crossings,native plants, bioretention curb extensions, sidewalk planters,permeable pavement for sustainable stormwater mgmt, sidewalks, trails, paths, green space, solar panels, electrical charging stations, narrow scenic roads like in sedona, bike paths, artwork, quiet pavement,mimic nature in design, green bldg rest areas, no cars. rail.

• In addition to safe wildlife crossings across the roadway, it is important to keep the wildlife linkage (or corridors) as intact as possible. Use land bridges to cross the road; fencing in strategic areas; wildlife cameras that link back to monitoring stations; and other means to protect wildlife and ultimatly motorists.

• Wildlife crossings will have to be addressed. I would caution against imposing too much as it will impact cost and may prevent the project from ever beginning.

• Truckstop electrification at logically sited truckstops so that truck drivers can plug in to have A/C overnight without having to idle diesel vehicles all night. [This was listed under Solar Lighting in the Surprise AZ meeting summary, but that is not the focus of this suggestion; not sure the electricity supply at the truckstop could be solar]

• wildlife crossings; avoid sensitive areas • Include as much existing roadway as possible (US Hwy 93) and limit new service areas.

How can we develop a sustainable corridor that meets the aspirations of the triple bottom line? Environment: What creative techniques can we use in corridor development to enhance the surrounding environment (e.g. wetland banking)?

• 1. wetland banking 2. Avoid sensitive areas (cultural and natural) all together to minimize mitigation and restoration.

• habitat acquisition for mitigation or conservation mitigation fees comprehensive cumulative and off‐site impacts analysis with regional mitigation measures

• Wetland banking an inferior alternative to preventing wetland and riparian losses‐ Very hard to replace these habitats in the arid west. Do not bank for replacement acres far from site of impact.

• underground utilites, keep views open, mimic nature in design (shapes and curves) and artwork, use similar plant material and colors of the area, match the character of the area, Use materials that are produced in the area or from sustain. sources, LEED certified rest areas.



• An interstate corridor will only disturb the surrounding environement, not enhance it. What you will be doing is mitigating that disturbance. Focus the roadway to areas that will cause the least disturbance in the first place. Use on‐site mitigation. Use in‐lieu‐fee programs, and any other available tool. Maintain wildlife linkages.

• Sufficient shade structures at rest stops. Native drought resistant plantings. • develop edcuation overviews in areas such as where Joshua trees are located • Drainage design to minimize changes to natural conditions, but also to possibly have small

retention/detention basins to support wildlife.

How can we develop a sustainable corridor that meets the aspirations of the triple bottom line? Social & Economic: What approaches should we take to balance regional mobility needs and economic opportunities without creating urban sprawl?

• Set strict zoning requirements to concentrate development. • Must integrate into County level planning with local communities agreeing to open space and

wildlife corridor linkages up front. Once development values emerge because of the I‐11 will be close to impossible to secure needed lands

• Unless the highway is no‐access, some urban sprawl along the route is inevitable. Work with local municipalities to understand their land use planning. Planning and acquiring the right‐of‐way for commuter rail or high‐speed rail at the same time as the I‐11 corridor would help balance regional mobility needs.

• Be creative and bold with sustainable design to win awards for our roads! it will bring tourism! Make this route exceptional! don't cut the land apart with wide hot asphalt highways, put a green roof ontop to soften the appearance ‐ it could also serve as a stoping point for birds, or cover with solar panels to creat energy ‐ dual use!

• Keep off‐ramp exits for gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc as close to existing city/town areas as possible to limit sprawl and to prohibit new development where it might not be desirable. Use signage to announce local businesses, parks, recreation areas, etc. and direct the motorists to where it IS desireable to have them.

• Land use decisions are made at the local level through zoning code and related ordinances. You can pretty much look at existing development and municipal general plans and see where future development will occur. "Urban sprawl" is an emotionally charged term that results from local preferences on questions of density and intentity of land use.

• Designate scenic/recreational segments not to be developed. Collect developer impact fees to fund infrastructure costs they create.

• This has probably been brought up in other venues, but if the I‐11 corridor could be designed to include space for a future high‐speed rail service, that could open up economic opportunites.


• No • Riparian and grassland habitats are critical and vulnerable to degradation and permanent loss • use sustainable construction methods ‐ recycle materials, use materials from sust. certified

sources or created locally, use energy efficient equipment, solar panels, etc. reduce air quality impacts. Research Green Street programs in cities around US, and examples in europe. DONT LIMIT CHARACTERS IN THESE ANSWER BOXES ONLINE

• Local chambers of commerce or offices of tourism might help identify desireable areas for off‐ramp ammenities (gas stations, sight‐seeing, etc). BLM. Please continue to work with Arizona



Game and Fish (and the Nevada version) to identify and understand wildlife linkages and how to protect them.

• I believe that any key groups that were "missing" were missing by their choice to not prioritize attendance. That said, I wish the City of Buckeye had made a stronger effort to appear because much of the likely alignment will be in its jurisdiction. If they were not invited they should at least get a briefing.

• OHV Users/Parks Department: Jeff Prince? Someone with expertise on drinking water supply in AZ along possible alignments?

• Use small scale solar use throughout the corridor where possible (e.g. powering signs, any rest stops that may be in the mix, etc.).

• I liked one person's suggestion to consider greenhouse gas emissions in evaluating this corridor in relation to other alternatives such as rail and no action. Transportation contributes 27% of GHG's in this country, so the potential of any transportation development project to add to the rate of GHG emissions should be should be evaluated.

• Put more emphasis on rail transportation and less on highways. • Use AGFD HabiMap data • Incorpoarte the input you gather on sustainable design, don't gather this input only to fulfil

outreach purposes. Don't just do the norm ‐ same freeways, lets win awards! At least use solar ‐ this is the sunniest place!

• Intelligent Transportation signs overhead in conjunction with traffic incident pulloffs will be needed to prevent long backups. (b) Transfer points for tourists to change from Greyhound‐type bus out of Phoenix/Las Vegas to individual tour operator van/shuttle to scenic/recreational opportunities [Ex: To Grand Canyon].

• The Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) proposes to construct the Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA; sometimes referred to as “Ivanpah Airport”) on approximately 6,000 acres in the Ivanpah Valley in southern Nevada between Jena and Primm, near the California state line. The new airport would provide additional capacity to serve visitors to the metropolitan Las Vegas Area and residents of greater Clark County, NV. It would not replace McCarran International Airport, but would supplement the existing airport. Planning of the SNSA has been considerably slowed due to the economic downturn and resulting decrease in air traffic at McCarran International Airport. Accordingly, in 2010 the Federal Aviation Administration temporarily suspended environmental work on SNSA. CCDOA does not maintain records of annual passenger counts between the major airports in your study area (i.e. between LAS and TIA/PHX/RNO). These data might be obtained from airlines that service these airports and/or be gleaned from the DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) Bureau of Statistics website (http://www.transtats.bts.gov)



Appendices List of Meeting Attendees by Agency Presentation Transcript PowerPoint Presentation



List of Meeting Attendees by Agency Meeting First Name Last Name Agency

Surprise Diane Arnst ADEQ

Surprise Thor Anderson ADOT

Surprise Asad Karim ADOT

Surprise Michael Kies ADOT

Surprise Carlos Lopez ADOT

Surprise John McNamara AECOM

Surprise Jaclyn Pfeiffer AECOM

Surprise Dana Warnecke Arizona Game and Fish Department

Surprise Bill Knowles Arizona Game and Fish Department

Webinar Chip Young Arizona Game and Fish Department

Webinar Michelle Green Arizona State Land Department

Surprise Ian Dowdy Arizona Wilderness Coalition

Carson City Brenda Gilbert BEC Environmental

Carson City Frederick Marcell Bureau of Land Management

Las Vegas Catrina Williams Bureau of Land Management

Carson City Mary Figarelle Bureau of Land Management Nevada State Office

Las Vegas John Evans Bureau of Land Management, Southern Nevada

Las Vegas Dan Andersen CH2M HILL

Las Vegas Bardia Nezhati CH2M HILL

Webinar Jennifer Roberts CH2M HILL

Webinar Kevin Louis City of Casa Grande

Las Vegas Marco Velotta City of Las Vegas

Webinar Jackie Brady Clark County

Las Vegas Philip Klevorick Clark County Comprehensive Planning Department

Las Vegas Dawn Leaper Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental Management

Webinar Mark Silverstein Clark County Department of Aviation

Surprise Jim Kenny El Dorado Holdings

Surprise Thomas Hulen Friends of the Sonoran Desert National Monument

Carson City Frankie Vigil Good Standing Outreach

Las Vegas Denise Gordon HDR

Las Vegas Stuart Martin Holman's of Nevada, Inc.

Surprise P. Hubbard Hubbard & Hubbard

Carson City William Campbell Inter‐Tribal Council of Nevada

Las Vegas Adam Stubbs Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Surprise Leigh Johnson Maricopa County

Carson City Lucy Joyce NDOT



Meeting First Name Last Name Agency

Carson City Rebecca Kapuler NDOT

Carson City Sondra Rosenberg NDOT

Carson City Kevin Verre NDOT

Las Vegas John O'Rourke Nevada Highway Patrol

Webinar Anne Macquarie Nevadans for Clean Affordable Reliable Energy NCARE

Las Vegas Cash Jaszczak Nye County

Webinar Fausto Burruel Pinal County

Webinar Audra Koester Thomas PSA

Las Vegas Andrew Kjellman Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada

Webinar Tiffany Sprague Sierra Club

Webinar John Neville Sustainable Arizona

Webinar Sarah More Town of Sahuarita

Carson City Abdelmoez Abdalla U.S. Department of Transportation

Webinar Clifton Meek U.S. EPA, Region 9



Presentation Transcript The following is a transcript of the focus group presentation. It was completed in real‐time, and is has not been edited, proofread or corrected. It may contain computer‐generated mistranslations or electronic transmission errors, and may have inaccurate references, spellings or word usage. It is provided for purposes of reference only.

Operator: Good afternoon. My name is (Rose) and I will be your conference operator today.

At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the I‐11 Focused Group on

Environment and Sustainability. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any

background noise.

After the speakers remarks, there will be question and answer session. If you would

like to ask a question during this time, simply press star then the number one on

your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question press the

pound key.

Thank you. It is now my pleasure to turn the call over to your host Mr. Michael Kies.

Sir you may begin.

Michael Kies: Great. Thank you. This is Mike Kies with the Arizona Department and

Transportation and we’re in Surprise Arizona. I’m the co‐project manager for this

project with ‐‐ for ADOT and then Sondra Rosenberg is the other project manager

for NDOT for the study and she’ll be doing some of the presentation today.

Thanks for all ‐‐ thanks for everybody for joining us and why don’t we just get into

the agenda for today. I’m going to do a little ‐‐ I mean do an overview of the study

of what, where we are with the study and what we hope to accomplish as we go

through the process.

Then Sondra will introduce the environmental review process that we will be doing

with the study and then we will be talking about how we will ‐‐ today we’ll gain

some input on environmental and the sustainability issues for the Corridor.

And then after the presentation is over, each group will break out into discussions

session locally in Surprise, Las Vegas and Carson City and then everybody who’s on



the phone will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide input onto the

study.

So with that, the next slide ‐‐ this idea of a new Interstate Corridor connecting

Arizona and Nevada is not new. Many people might know the CANAMEX Corridor

which was originally designated in the mid 90’s, 1995, which looked at enhancing

connectivity between Mexico and Canada through Arizona and Nevada and other

states in the Intermountain West.

Since that time, there have been some other studies that have moved this idea

further, some of the studies here in Arizona with the Maricopa Association of

Government to look at transportation needs in the Phoenix Metro Area and what

we called the Sun Corridor between Phoenix and Tucson. Other studies in Nevada

such as the Boulder City bypass to provide better connectivity between Las Vegas

and Hoover Dam and beyond.

Last summer we were fortunate that part of the CANAMEX Corridor along U.S. 93

between Phoenix and Vegas has now been designated as a potential future

Interstate Highway known as I‐11. And since that time, ADOT and NDOT have come

together for a partnership study which is what the study is we’re talking about

today. And we planned this study to last about two years to look at the visibility of

this Interstate 11 Corridor plus what we call the Intermountain West Corridor which

is beyond what has been designated as future I‐11 between Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Next slide

So as I mentioned, this study is not only looking at that area that has been

designated as future I‐11 which is what we call our priority Corridor between Las

Vegas and Phoenix but we are looking beyond to as far as the Mexican border and

the Northern border of Nevada.

And to accomplish this, we proposed to look at the Corridor in two levels of

investigation, where we look a little more details in what we refer to as our priority

Corridor again from Las Vegas to Phoenix. And then at a higher level North of Las

Vegas all the way up to the border with the Northern border of Nevada and then

South of Phoenix as far as the Mexican border.



Just to let everybody know, this map that you on the screen, really is the most

detailed map that we have at this time about individual alignment

recommendations for the Corridor because first we are looking at the Corridor from

a justification standpoint and then we are going to look at individual alignments that

could possibly meet that transportation need that we identify.

We also want to look at this from a multimodal perspective, we’re not only thinking

about an interstate highway but can, there be opportunities for other modes such

as freight rail, passenger rail and other opportunities such as utility corridors and

other movements of goods along the Corridor.

Next slide

With that, when the study was started, we identified some possible opportunities

that this Corridor could bring to the area of the Intermountain West, you can see

many of them up there about enhancing connectivity, the economic

competitiveness, network redundancy. And today we’re really focusing on that item

of promote sustainable development which is where the environmental context

comes into play.

Next Slide

So under that sustainable development opportunity that we have identified, this is

where you see enhancing wildlife connectivity and other environmental factors ‐‐ oh

go ahead (Inaudible) that. This is the way that we have structured the study team

for the study.

We have our project sponsor’s which is NDOT and ADOT which Sondra and I are

both representing our departments. We are the funding source, as a funding

partner’s of the study but we do want to have the study team be all inclusive, so we

have what we call or core agency partners which you see there, below the project

sponsors.

And that’s not only NDOT and ADOT but we invited our federal partners such as

Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration and then also



the planning organizations for the Phoenix Metro Area which is MAG and the RGC of

Southern Nevada which is the planning organization up in the Las Vegas area.

Beyond that we’ve also opened the projects up to involvement by our stakeholder

partners and this is the group that you’re just a subset of the path group that we

have organized where we have a lot of interested parties that are providing us input

on the study. And then we’ve also had a couple of public meetings which we had

one public meeting in Nevada and one in Arizona back in September, with a lot of

input from interested parties.

And now what we’re doing is we’re going through these focused group meetings,

where we’ve looked at specific subjects that we want to drill down into and we’ve

actually completed several of these meetings, you can see those check marks there

where freight users, economic development and the utility focused groups and

today where ‐‐ this is the focused group on Environmental and Sustainability.

Next slide

So here is our work program and really what we’ve done is we’ve divided the study

into two major phases of that red part of the work program is what we’re referring

to as our Corridor justification phase, so from now until this summer, we are going

to be focusing on what is the justification for this Corridor and what is that ultimate

transportation purpose and need that this Corridor would fulfill.

Then at that time, we would go into the brown colored phase of the project which is

that last half of the study. That’s when we would start looking at the actual

Corridors that could fill that transportation need and starting to look at the Phoenix

Metro Areas, the Las Vegas Metro Area and the connectivity in between. Ending us

with what we refer to as our spinal business case for the project and then our

Corridor concept report which summarizes all of the recommendations for the I‐11

and Intermountain West Corridor.

With that, I’d like to pass it off to Sondra Rosenberg in Carson City with NDOT and

she’ll introduce the environmental review information.



Sondra Rosenberg: Thank you, Mike. So this is a unique opportunity, it’s not our typical Corridor Study

where there’s you know a facility we’re looking at improving, that maybe some of

the options here, we also have the option here to come up with a new concept for

our Corridor.

And someone said at one of our focused group meetings, (Inaudible) the Corridor

for the future should not be exactly the same as the Corridors of the past. We

should learn from the past and each time make it a little bit better, so maybe

Corridor of existing Corridor improvements and maybe the opportunity for a whole

new Corridor.

But regardless, we want to use this to set an example of a sustainable Corridor that

incorporates contact sensitive solutions. We want to not only minimize impact but

look at opportunities to enhance the environment surrounding this Corridor as well.

Next slide please.

And I’m sure most of this group is aware of this figure, you know that ends the

concept of this triple bottom line for sustainability. So we are very much concerned

with not only the environmental sustainability but also social and economic.

So for social sustainability, we want a Corridor that’s safe, we want to be able to

provide access to everyone, we want to provide mobility choices and we want this

facility to be an asset to the community, not just provide a transportation

connection but really be part of that community. Any community is different along

the way.

We certainly wanted you to look at economic sustainability, you know one ‐‐ what

we proposed used to be affordable and cost effective but it also need to support the

economic needs of the states that are a part of this. And of course we want to be

environmentally sustainable as well, we want to be compatible with the natural

environment and look at how to minimize the use of resources.

Next slide

Male 1: When we say environment, means natural environments (Inaudible).



Male 2: Aren’t we talking of natural environment?

Male 1: I’m asking.

Male 2: We are.

Sondra Rosenberg: Let me finish the presentation and we’ll get to the breakout conversation.

Male 2: Got it.

Sondra Rosenberg: Thank you. So applied to this Corridor I think I mentioned some of those ideas in

the previous slide but really to preserve open space in the natural environment and

we’re interested in natural, cultural and Phoenix heritage, protect streams, wildlife ‐

‐ not wildlife, habitat, migration corridors, utilize natural space you know sort of

utilize the national environment to help enhance the area.

And in addition to that, that’s sort of what we’re focusing on for environment

sustainability, but it ties very closely in with something we’re going to focus a little

bit more on next week which is land use and community development.

So how that all ties together, so the next few bullet points are more about the

transportation land use connection which very so overlaps with environment

sustainability, so you know the transportation Corridor really needs to fit it with

other development plans, so the long range vision of the plans as well.

Next slide

And we’re also looking at contact sensitive solution, so we want to address the

transportation need in a safe, feasible, implementable way and accommodate all of

those. Become a community asset, as mentioned before each community is a little

bit different and how they value different things like transportation and land use in

the environment might be slightly different which each community, so we really

need to look at those community values and how this is an opportunity to enhance

those as well. And we want to strive for compatibility with the natural and built

environment and of course leverage current investments and other commitments.



Next slide

So in a minute here, I’m going to pass it over to Jackie who really did a lot of the

initial environmental stream line, but I just want to mention that we’re using this

study as an opportunity to test out both states new planning and environment

linkages tool, which is basically a form we’re filling out but the idea in planning and

environment linkages is to take a look early on in the planning process at the

environment ‐‐ potential environmental impact or constraints you might have.

So that those are documented early on and as you’re planning a facility, you keep

those in mind and not wait till it’s designed and go into the mutual process. And

we’re trying to document in as much detail as we can, so that that information can

go into NEPA process if and when we have a more detailed Corridor to move

forward.

So with that, I’m going to pass it on over to Jackie Pfeiffer and she’s going to quickly

glance over some of the resources we’ve started to take a look at and we have maps

for.

Jackie Pfeiffer: Thanks, Sondra. If we want to stay on this slide for one more minute, Sondra had

mentioned that you know what we are doing in terms of an environmental review

so far is in accordance with the planning and environmental linkages process.

The next couple of slides there kind of wrap up the group presentation component

of this focus group, we’re going to tell some of the examples of that maps that we

have in our preliminary technical memo which goes through all of these information

and it’s important to keep in mind that we’ll show maps for different segments of

the Corridor.

As Mike showed in the beginning, we’re looking at the full states of Arizona and

Nevada and even further beyond to Canada to Mexico, so we’re just showing some

example slides so that we can show you that we have reached out to a lot of

different state agencies, regional agencies, different organizations that might have

some of the data and information that can help support what we’re working on.



And at this point and this is pre NEPA phase, we’re really focusing kind of these

major opportunities and constraints that we can keep in mind as we justify the need

for this Corridor and then provide a justification, move into ‐‐ coming off with some

alternative locations and alignments for this Corridor.

So at this point in time we’re really looking at various different data sources and

areas of interest. You can see of the forwarded list on this slide, for example if you

look at a bunch of different information related to biological resources, so we’ve

looked at sensitive species, habitat areas, wildlife corridors, different

environmentally sensitive lands for different reason, any known historic and cultural

resources, drainage facilities, topographies, slopes, transportation networks, utility

inventory, land ownership, the locations of major economic activity centers and we

put all these on to different maps, we’ve analyzed these data, so we have a really

good foundation to start with.

So we want you to show you on the next couple of slides, show you that we looked

at all these information so that hopefully later, once we get to the discussions, we

could really focus our conversation more and what are some of the opportunities

that this Corridor could consider in relationship to the environment and

sustainability.

So moving on to next slide, like I said this would be some of the sample of the

different maps that we’ve looked at so far some of these information, so we have

land ownership information for both Arizona and Nevada and have taken a look at

that and to see what impact that could have on where we would place the Corridor.

We’ve also looked at our historic and cultural resources, this is a high level inventory

of information that we know is out there today. Obviously once we have a series of

preferred alignments, we’re looking for some of this information in much more

detail, but like I said we’re looking at a level right now to provide us these major

opportunities and constraints.

Moving on to the next slide, I know that we’re going to get through this quickly and

we might not be able to see them all in quite detail, but then you’ll have any

questions, we can look at these more once we get into our group discussion.



We looked at biological resources. We put some of the data that is presented on a

map that’s shown on the slide, ranges from the areas of critical environmental

concern, threatening endangered species, any wildlife refuge areas ‐‐ wildlife areas

that are designated now in national monument, other things of that nature.

As the blue map that you see out there that’s labeled heavy map, this is from the

Arizona Game and Fish Department, this is a tool that they’ve developed here in

Arizona to help understand areas of where wildlife connectivity in areas that would

be more conducive or less conducive displacing infrastructure development, so

we’ve got this information available for the State of Arizona and we’ve analyzed

that.

Just a similar structure is not available in Nevada but we do have other sources of

information that we referred to and work with the State of Nevada to get equivalent

information in that portion of the Corridor.

Moving on to the next slide, we also have analyzed slope, we have topography

information for both areas to understand, you’ll see the different colors on there in

terms of what is the percent grade in areas, what could be more conducive to

placing some form of transportation infrastructure than others.

We’ve also acquired information from the state, the Department on Water

Resources, NEMA, on any major drainage and hydrological resources in all of these

segment areas, to understand those inputs.

Moving to the next slide, Mike had mention that we’d like to look at the possibility

of this not just being necessarily a roadway facility but it could include other forms

of infrastructure, it could move energy transmission, different utilities, there could

be some opportunities for shared right of way with some of the other form of

infrastructure. So we’ve looked area that has higher potential for wind energy

utilization, also solar energy potential such as implementation of any kind of solar

farms or large solar generating facility.

And moving on to the next slide, along those same lines, potential utility Corridors

that had been plan or proposed to date, we’re also looking at (Inaudible) utility

infrastructure. We’re working with both states in terms of broadband



infrastructure, that’s another major component that could be potentially paired

with any kind of roadway rail, implementation within the same lines and right of

way, so understanding where that is located right now.

And then obviously this is a transportation study, so understanding what other

modes of transportation are out there today, where they ‐‐ where they go, where

this Corridor could potentially have junctions and interface with these

transportation facilities so either kind of high‐level of both the states of Arizona and

Nevada, but you see that we’ve been looking at the roadway network, the rail

network.

And then moving on to the next slide also accommodating and understanding major

airport facilities and then the effect that some of the seaports on the West Coast

could have on moving goods and services through the study area, utilizing any of

these Corridors, you know including the I‐11 and Intermountain West Corridor.

Audra Koester Thomas: All right, thanks Jackie for that quick review of some of the data that you

guys have already mapped out. My name is Audra Koester Thomas and I’m going to

introduce you to the discussion questions that we are going to be facilitating with

you individually at your locations and then those of you who have joined us on the

call or via the webinar, what we’ll be hosting in a moment.

Why you’re here and how’s your input going to be used ‐‐ we want you to become

partners with us in developing a sustainable I‐11 Corridor and in part of doing that,

we want you to help us identify and understand some of the environmental issues

and opportunities that go along with that. We want to create a holistic and flexible

Corridor and we want this study to launch us into future NEPA studies.

We’ve already had some opportunities to garner feedback from you, our

stakeholder partners as well as the public and here’s just an opportunity to review

some of the things that we’ve already heard. And we heard that this is an

opportunity to have an environmentally friendly green Corridor and to enhance, not

necessarily negatively impact the natural environment.

And we’ve heard opportunities to perhaps create a scenic Corridor and to provide

access to recreational opportunities as well as to use latest technologies to



accommodate wildlife movements and as Sondra mentioned earlier, the

opportunity to invest a context sensitive solutions. And as Jackie just alluded to

earlier, we really want to fulfill the PEL requirements that both states are under or

initiating.

We have a series of discussion questions that we hope will spark robust

conversation with you today. As Sondra alluded to earlier, we really would like to

identify how the Corridor could meet the aspirations at the triple bottom line and to

that end we have three questions.

Two related to the environment and the first we’re going to be asking you is what

sustainable futures and elements can we integrate into the Corridor development

and design. So in this case we really are asking you about technologies or features

to the Corridor infrastructure itself and an example perhaps would be wildlife

crossings.

We’ll follow that question up with what creative techniques can we use in Corridor

development to enhance the surrounding environment, so in this case we’re looking

for how this Corridor can provide opportunities to enhance the environment

surrounding it and in this case we’re providing an example of wetland banking.

We’re also going to be asking social and economic implications to the triple bottom

line and here we’re going to initiate a dialogue on what approaches we should take

to balance regional mobility needs and economic opportunities without creating

urban sprawl.

And for those of you who have joined us in previous focus group, you’ll recognize

this question which is our closing question for each of these focus groups where we

ask if there is anything else or any other considerations that we should take into

account as part of this study and are there any key groups or individuals missing

from the dialogue.

As some of you already know we’re in the midst of our focus group meetings. Today

marks our halfway point of our January and February focus groups. We have three

more and forthcoming, we have next week the land use and community



development, where we will be focusing on the urban design and urban form

concepts.

Two weeks from now we’ll be talking about Corridor operations and for those of you

who are interested in a multimodal aspect of this Corridor and its potential, we’d

love for you to join us then, and then we’ll close the focus groups with the topical

discussion on alternative delivery in finance.

As you see our group has been busy working on technical reports, including

technical memorandum number one which is existing in future Corridor condition,

some of the feedback you provide us today may help to inform this technical memo

which we hope to be delivered here in early spring.

We’re also working on the preliminary business case and the Corridor justification

report or your feedback in these and other focused groups will also contribute to

that document. And then in May we’re anticipating another general stakeholder

partners meeting, which some of you may have participated in our first one back in

September of 2012.

So with that, I would like to thank you all for participating with us, for our individual

locations in Carson City, Las Vegas and Surprise, thanks again, I will ask if Mike or

Sondra have any final statements that they would like to make to the group.

Sondra Rosenberg: I just want to thank everyone for their time again and I look forward to this fruitful

discussion.

Michael Kies: Same here. Thanks for joining.

I‐11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study: Environment and Sustainability Focus Group Meeting

February 5, 2013

1

I-11 & Intermountain West Corridor StudyI-11 & Intermountain West Corridor Study

Focus Group MeetingFocus Group Meeting

Environment and SustainabilityEnvironment and Sustainability

In partnership with

SustainabilitySustainability

February 5, 2013

AgendaAgenda

• Study overview

• Environmental reviewEnvironmental review

• Input on environment and sustainability for the corridor

• Next steps

2


February 5, 2013

2

BackgroundBackground

• Federal transportation authorizations identified high priority corridors

• CANAMEX Corridor designated (1995)• CANAMEX Corridor designated (1995)• Corridor advanced through:

– MAG Hassayampa and Hidden Valley Framework Studies (2006 – 2009)

– Building a Quality Arizona (bqAZ, 2010)– NDOT/RTCSNV Boulder City Bypass

(2005 and ongoing)

• CANAMEX Corridor along US 93CANAMEX Corridor along US 93 between Phoenix and Las Vegas designated as future “I-11” in MAP-21 (2012)

• Arizona and Nevada DOTs signed an interagency agreement and begin a joint planning study (2012+)

3

What Does this Study Entail?What Does this Study Entail?

• Two levels of investigation:– Detailed corridor planning

between Las Vegas andbetween Las Vegas and Phoenix

– High-level visioning from Las Vegas to Canada, and from Phoenix to Mexico

• Multimodal consideration:Interstate/highway freight rail– Interstate/highway, freight rail, passenger rail, and public transportation

– Power, telecommunication, etc.

4


February 5, 2013

3

Corridor OpportunitiesCorridor Opportunities

• Enhance local, regional, national and global connectivity

• Enhance economic competiveness and activity

• Provide network redundancy and flexibility

• Provide flexibility for evolving modal choices

• Promote sustainable developmentPromote sustainable development

5

Corridor OpportunitiesCorridor Opportunities

• Promote sustainable development

Connect and reinforce existing economic– Connect and reinforce existing economic activity centers

– Densify existing nodes

– Reuse existing corridors

– Preserve the natural environment

Enhance wildlife connectivity– Enhance wildlife connectivity

6


February 5, 2013

4

Study ParticipantsStudy Participants

7

Setting the Foundation for the StudySetting the Foundation for the Study

8


February 5, 2013

5

Environmental ReviewEnvironmental Review

Corridor ExpectationCorridor Expectation

Set an example of a sustainable corridor that incorporates context sensitive solutions to minimize impacts to the natural and manmade environments and, wherever possible, enhance the natural environment through which the corridor traverses

10


February 5, 2013

6

• SocialSafe

What is Sustainability in Transportation?Triple Bottom LineWhat is Sustainability in Transportation?Triple Bottom Line

– Safe– Equitable access– Mobility choices– Asset to the community

• Economic– Supports economic needs– Cost-efficient– Affordable

• Environment – Compatible with natural environment– Less pollution and extraction of resources

11

How is Sustainability Applicable to this Corridor?How is Sustainability Applicable to this Corridor?

• Preserve open space and the natural environment– Preserve natural, cultural and scenic heritage

– Protect streams, natural washes and wildlife corridors

– Maintain and enhance wildlife habitats, migration corridors and linkages across jurisdictional boundaries

– Utilize natural open space and agricultural lands as buffers between activity centers

• Enable development of multi-use activity centers composed of location efficient land uses

12

location-efficient land uses

• Connect quality job centers proximate to a range of housing options

• Develop multimodal transportation network for efficient community and regional mobility and to create economic opportunity

• Shape community environments through the inclusion of information and communications technology


February 5, 2013

7

Context Sensitive SolutionsContext Sensitive Solutions

• Address the transportation need– Safe, financially feasible,

implementable– Accommodate all modes

• Become a community asset– Involve the community and

stakeholders in collaborative, interdisciplinary approach

– Understand the respect the contextSt i f tibilit ith th

13

• Strive for compatibility with the natural and built environments– Implement with minimal impacts

and aesthetic integration• Leverage current investments and

other commitments

Review of Environmental ElementsReview of Environmental Elements

• In accordance with the Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process, the study team conducted an initial scan of environmental considerations:– Biological resources (sensitive

species, habitat areas, wildlife corridors)

– Environmentally-sensitive lands

– Known historic/cultural resources

– Major drainage features

14

Major drainage features

– Topography/slopes analysis

– Transportation network and utility corridors

– Land ownership and economic activity centers

Photo courtesy of Arizona Game and Fish Department


February 5, 2013

8

Land Ownership Historic and Cultural Resources

Sample of Environmental ScanSample of Environmental Scan

15

Biological Resources HabiMap*


16

*Tool offered through the Arizona Game and Fish Dept


February 5, 2013

9


Slopes Analysis Major Drainage Features

17


Wind Energy Potential

Solar Energy Potential

18


February 5, 2013

10


Potential Utility Corridors Broadband Infrastructure

19


Roadway Network Rail Network

20


February 5, 2013

11


Airports Seaports

21

DiscussionDiscussion


February 5, 2013

12

Why Am I Here and How is My Input Used?Why Am I Here and How is My Input Used?

• Partner with us to develop a sustainable corridor

• Help us understand environmental issues and opportunitiesHelp us understand environmental issues and opportunities

• Your input will:– Inform the Corridor decisions in this phase of the study

– Help create a holistic and flexible Corridor

– Will link to future decisions as study evolves to future NEPA studies

23

• Become an environmentally-friendly, “green” corridor

• Avoid negative environmental impact by incorporating elements

Stakeholder Partner’s Input Received to-date: Environment and Sustainability OpportunitiesStakeholder Partner’s Input Received to-date: Environment and Sustainability Opportunities

to enhance the natural environment

• Create a scenic route

• Provide access to recreational opportunities

• Accommodate wildlife movements

• Become well integrated with

24

• Become well-integrated with the natural environment—not a disturbance (context sensitive solutions)

• Fulfill PEL requirements


February 5, 2013

13

Discussion QuestionsDiscussion Questions

• How can we develop a sustainable corridor that meets the aspirations of the Triple Bottom Line?

– Environment:

• What sustainable features and elements can we integrate into corridor development and design (e.g., wildlife crossings)?

• What creative techniques can we use in corridor development to enhance the surrounding environment (e.g., wetland banking)?

– Social & Economic:

25

• What approaches should we take to balance regional mobility needs and economic opportunities without creating urban sprawl?

• Is there anything else that we should consider in this corridor planning effort, and are there key groups/individuals missing from this dialogue?

Next StepsNext Steps


February 5, 2013

14

Next StepsNext Steps

• Focus Group Meetings

– January 8: Utility/Energy

– January 22: Economic Development

– January 29: Freight Users

– February 5: Environment and Sustainability

– February 12: Land Use and Community Development

– February 19: Corridor Operations

– February 26: Alternative Delivery and Finance

• Reports

– Technical Memorandum 1: Existing and Future Corridor Conditions (early Spring)

– Preliminary Business Case Foundation (Late Spring)

– Corridor Justification Report (Summer)

• General Stakeholder Partners Meeting (May)27

Project Contacts:Project Contacts:

Documents

Environment Sustainability Focus Group February 5, 2013 1 ...i11study.com/...02-05-I...Focus-Group-Report-FINAL.pdf · received relative to environment and sustainability issues and